People have been especially quick to mock Brooks for assigning his own writing, but I don’t see a problem with that, especially since it’s a very small part of the reading load. I rarely assign stuff I’ve written, but when I do it’s because I see no point in making my students listen to me say something that’s already in written form. Why not just let them read the more polished version and then in class I can talk about other things? The criticism of Brooks on this score seems to me silly.

Now, you can argue that Brooks isn’t academically qualified to teach such a course, but universities have a long history of inviting prominent public figures to teach courses even when they lack formal academic credentials, so if you’re going to denounce Brooks’s course on those grounds, you’ll need to shoot down a great many other clay pigeons first. My view of the matter is that Brooks will be asking his students to think about a really important topic that they’re not otherwise likely to be asked to think about. He’s also evidently trying to do this by putting before them examples of humility in action, which seems especially useful. All that seems like a good thing to me.

I might want to add to his reading list, though. My friends Jay Wood and Bob Roberts have written a fine book on intellectual virtue, which includes a treatment of humility. You can get a capsule summary of their thinking about intellectual humility, especially in relation to scientific research, in this essay by Jay.

Hide 9 comments

9 Responses to David Brooks and Humility

You might wonder at the idea of a course on humility taught by a professor who, for many years, was most famous for promoting a goal called “National Greatness.” And if you happened to wonder about the connection between National Greatness and support for the Iraq war, well, that probably wouldn’t kill you either.

Now, you can argue that Brooks isn’t academically qualified to teach such a course, but universities have a long history of inviting prominent public figures to teach courses even when they lack formal academic credentials, so if you’re going to denounce Brooks’s course on those grounds, you’ll need to shoot down a great many other clay pigeons first.

Okay–hand me my shotgun.

In all seriousness, I take your point that this is the kind of thing universities do all the time. I think that’s a problem, and an indication that universities are just as susceptible as any other institution to trendiness and the appeal of celebrity.

The Atlantic article you link to doesn’t seem to criticize the syllabus (aside from the fact that Brooks is assigning his own work); it’s criticizing the idea that Brooks is qualified to teach a course on humility.

Of course, that’s an ad hominem attack, but in this particular case I’d shy away from taking Brooks’ course for the same reason I wouldn’t take a course called Fidelity taught by Tiger Woods. The contrast between the subject matter and the behavior of the teacher would be too nauseous to tolerate. In addition to what JT mentions about Brooks’ very un-humble foreign policy outlook, there’s also his tendency to think he has sweeping insights into American culture based on superficial (or manufactured) reporting:

Humility is a worthy subject, and I’d enjoy learning about it from a qualified teacher (whether they’re on a university faculty or not). But Brooks doesn’t seem to have either a humble outlook or a humble approach to doing his job. And that’s why he’s famous–it’s the kind of grandiosity that gets you on the Times op-ed page with world-class blowhards like Thomas Friedman. Letting him give lessons on humility seems perverse, and contrary to the moral and academic seriousness that should define a university.

Brooks was writing all the same things in late 2002 and early 2003 about Iraq — though, back then, he did so from the pages of Rupert Murdoch and Bill Kristol’s The Weekly Standard. … [I was] struck by how extreme and noxious it all was: the snide, hubristic superiority combined with absolute wrongness about everything. What people like David Brooks were saying back then was so severe — so severely wrong, pompous, blind, warmongering and, as it turns out, destructive — that no matter how many times one reviews the record of the leading opinion-makers of that era, one will never be inured to how poisonous they are.

All of this would be a fascinating study for historians if the people responsible were figures of the past. But they’re not. They’re the opposite. The same people shaping our debates now are the same ones who did all of that, and they haven’t changed at all. They’re doing the same things now that they did then. … According to National Journal‘s recently convened “panel of Congressional and Political Insiders,” Brooks is now the commentator who “who most help[s] to shape their own opinion or worldview” – second only to Tom “Suck On This“ Friedman. Charles Krauthammer came in third.

Brooks could demonstrate humility, a la Profumo, but instead he has the audacity to go to Yale to teach a course on humility.

Come on, guys. The course looks a bit lightweight, but interesting. Brooks has a distinctive perspective on the topic – his essay on The Organization Kid was excellent. Students signing up will know what they’re getting. A lot of the criticism has centered on him assigning his own work, which is beyond absurd as a criticism.

Let’s not get into the question of whether all professors of moral philosophy are exemplary moral beings, or whether that matters.

Really? What jumped out at me is that he has assigned 4 secondary summaries or regurgitations (some of which are Ok, some of which are really third or fourth rate) rather than the original Thucydides, Augustine, Montaigne, or Tolstoy. The originals are perfectly accessible, and much more exciting and interesting.

Let’s not get into the question of whether all professors of moral philosophy are exemplary moral beings, or whether that matters.

Few of us are “exemplary moral beings.” That’s not what I expect of someone teaching a course in humility. What I do expect is that I could examine the teacher’s participation in public life and find either:

1) The teacher has exhibited humility in a way that makes it possible for him or her to speak from experience;

2) The teacher has written about or studied humility in a way that makes it possible for him or her to speak with intellectual authority.

Brooks flunks both tests, and flunks them egregiously. “Humility” is something he uses as a rhetorical cudgel–something he accuses other people of lacking so he can ignore their opinions. For example, from the article reflectionephemeral linked above, here’s Brooks in the run-up to the war in Iraq:

As good, naive Americans, we think that if only we can show the world the seriousness of the threat Saddam poses, then they will embrace our response. In our good, innocent way, we assume that in persuading our allies we are confronted with a problem of understanding.

But suppose we are confronted with a problem of courage? Perhaps the French and the Germans are simply not brave enough to confront Saddam. . . . Or suppose we are confronted with a problem of character? Perhaps the French and the Germans understand the risk Saddam poses to the world order. Perhaps they know that they are in danger as much as anybody. They simply would rather see American men and women–rather than French and German men and women–dying to preserve their safety. . . . Far better, from this cynical perspective, to signal that you will not take on the terrorists–so as to earn their good will amidst the uncertain times ahead.

And here he is on domestic opponents of invading Iraq:

You begin to realize that they are not arguing about Iraq. They are not arguing at all. They are just repeating the hatreds they cultivated in the 1960s, and during the Reagan years, and during the Florida imbroglio after the last presidential election. They are playing culture war

If he wanted to teach a course decked out in sackcloth and ashes, and explain how his disgusting hubris led him to ascribe ignoble motives to his enemies as he advocated for an immoral and unnecessary war, I might audit that class. As it is, I don’t think Brooks has any clue what humility is, and therefore don’t think he has anything to teach anyone about it. And there’s a larger downside to giving him a platform at Yale to opine about this–it legitimizes his attempt to pose as a “thoughtful” and “humble” “conservative” when he’s none of those things.

As for what Yalies think they’re getting out of this course, I’m sure they’re well-aware that they’re getting the opportunity to network with a well-connected DC operator. The humility on display in class discussions is sure to be inspiring.